Judge Andrews rules on unique protective order dispute

Judge Richard G. Andrews recently ruled on a protective order dispute relating to the level of access granted to in-house counsel for a plaintiff whose business model was designed to avoid the hiring of lead outside trial counsel. Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies v. Service Lighting and Electrical Supplies, Inc. d/b/a 1000bulbs.com et al., C.A. Nos. 15-53-RGA, 15-56-RGA, 15-57-RGA, 15-58-RGA, 15-59-RGA, 15-60-RGA, 15-61-RGA, 15-62-RGA, 15-63-RGA (D. Del. May 18, 2016). In its own words, the plaintiff “is not designed, from a financial standpoint, to litigate through outside counsel. . . . Accordingly, aside from local counsel, Blackbird intends to litigate these cases entirely through its in-house lawyers.” Id. at 7. To date, three in-house lawyers had been admitted pro hac vice, two of whom Judge Andrews found were competitive decision makers (the President/CEO and a Vice President and Head of Litigation). Id. The plaintiff argued that these individuals should be permitted to access confidential information in the case because, “without such information, Blackbird would be prevented from pursuing these cases within its low-cost litigation business model, which will make continued litigation of these cases extremely difficult.” Id. at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Judge Andrews explained that “[w]hen attorneys serve the dual role of competitive decisionmakers and litigation counsel, . . . courts must consider both of those roles and cannot simply ignore the competitive decisionmaker aspect. For this reason, I cannot approve Blackbird’s request for carte blanche access . . . without affording stronger protections for Defendants. Id. at 16-17. Here, because there was “a concrete, particularized risk of inadvertent disclosure and misuse here. To give Blackbird’s competitive decisionmakers access to Defendants’ confidential technical and financial information would raise the specter of prosecuting or acquiring patents that read on Defendants’ products.” Id. at 12. Accordingly, Judge Andrews explained, “if the threat of future litigation is taken off the table, there is significantly less likelihood of harm to Defendants.” Id. at 13. The Court therefore ordered the parties to submit a proposed protective order that included a prosecution bar and a covenant not to sue Defendants on any patents acquired by the plaintiff in the relevant technology during the course of this litigation and for one year after its conclusion. Id. at 15-16.

We previously reported on Judge Sleet’s in limine rulings directed to Section 271(f) and European Patent Office proceedings in patent litigation related to aortic valve stents between Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic Corevalve. After a jury trial last week, the jury awarded Edwards Lifesciences lost profit damages and reasonable royalties. The verdict form has been made […]

Delaware IP Law Blog Author, Greg Brodzik, and Contributor, Jim Lennon, were invited by IPWatchdog.com to comment on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., et al., 569 U.S. ___, on the scope of patent eligibility in the context of DNA discoveries. Follow this link to […]

Delaware IP Law Blog ("Blog") is intended for informational purposes only and does not contain any legal advice. The authors of the Blog are attorneys in the law firm of Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, and the views expressed by one or more of the authors, including comments posted by registered visitors, solely reflect the opinions of those authors and not those of the firm or its clients. The publication of and posting to the Blog does not create an attorney-client relationship and the authors assume no liability for the dissemination of attorney-client or confidential information posted on the Blog by registered or unauthorized visitors. The Blog is not intended to be advertising of legal services or any other service. The authors assume no responsibility for inaccuracies.

The authors reserve the right to remove any posted content. Content that is illegal, obscene, defamatory, threatening, infringing of intellectual property rights, invasive of privacy, or otherwise injurious or objectionable will be removed.